246. We have received some evidence that injecting
drug users are denied treatment for Hepatitis C. A group of drugs
treatment professionals, Action against Hepatitis C, told us that
although deaths from Hepatitis C can be prevented by treatment,
some guidelines exclude current injecting drug users. They told
us:

"This is a major concern because drug users
form the greatest number of those who are infected with [Hepatitis
C Virus]. It ignores the human right to life and will considerably
increase the morbidity and mortality of drug users".[229]

247. While the Home Office told us that this
exclusion was based on clinical concerns of reinfection and non-compliance,
our evidence contradicted this.[230]

248. We recommend that the Government reviews
existing guidelines on the treatment of injecting drug users for
Hepatitis C and amends the guidelines if necessary to ensure that
users are not excluded from treatment.

250. Mrs Christine Glover, of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, reiterated this point:

"We have an ironical situation where we
are not allowed to supply the paraphernalia which also helps with
harm reduction. It is not appropriate that we are in a situation
where we cannot make a supply of citric acid or a swabs order
for injection because we are breaking the law...It is a nonsense".[232]

251. The Minister seemed unaware of this concern:

"Overwhelmingly the provision of equipment
has been about syringes and needles, for obvious reasons, because
it is blood borne infections that people that have been worried
about, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV. If there is a case that
can be made for the provision of other equipment we will be happy
to look at it".[233]

252. We recommend that the Government reviews
Section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with a view to repealing
it, to allow for the provision of drugs paraphernalia which reduces
the harm caused by drugs.

"Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act should
be reviewed and amended as appropriate to ensure that services
and individuals helping vulnerable people and drug users do not
fall within its purview. There is considerable disquiet that the
recent hasty amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was ill-conceived
and potentially damaging to those working with at-risk groups".[235]

256. Mr Ainsworth did not seem to see this as
a major problem:

"There is some worry and we took representations
over a period of time in order to try to satisfy ourselves that
Section 8 provisions were appropriate, where necessary, and would
not lead to people being criminalised in an inappropriate situation...If
we were to give some kind of exemption to people in any given
circumstance then we could find ourselves in a situation where
facilities were being abused and the prosecuting authorities would
have no ability to deal with the issue. We are only aware of a
couple of problems...As long as people are sensible about how
they use these provisions we would be very loathe to lose them
with the consequences that could arise in terms of facilities
being abused rather than used."[236]

257. We recommend that Section 8 of the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971 is amended to ensure that drugs agencies can
conduct harm reduction work and provide safe injecting areas for
users without fear of being prosecuted.

"this is not an issue that has been raised
with me...I have to admit that I have not talked directly with
pharmacists...We will need to pick that up and find out whether
or not there is an issue...If there are issues that pharmacists
want to raise obviously we will look at them".[238]

260. We recommend that the Home Office and
the Department of Health urgently review the current legal framework
on the dispensation of controlled drugs by community pharmacists
in consultation with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

262. The Committee has heard representations
that the schemes have, in some places, been set up in such a way
that offenders receive preferential treatment over non-offenders:
"in some districts, the quickest way to access treatment
is to commit a serious crime".[240]
We consider it highly undesirable that it should be easier
for a drug addict to access treatment through the criminal justice
system than in the community. This is a further reason, if any
were needed, for the Government to provide more treatment in the
community.

263. A new sanction being piloted in sentencing
drugs offenders is the Drug Abstinence Order, which requires the
offender to remain abstinent as a condition of his or her sentence.
Mr Roger Howard, Chief Executive of DrugScope, told us that his
organisation had lobbied for conditions of treatment to be attached
to these Orders, without success. Their view was that "the
requirement for someone with a potential drug problem to remain
drug free without adequate access to treatment is irresponsible".[241]
Mr Ainsworth assured the Committee:

"For those for whom it is felt appropriate,
we should be offering drug treatment and testing orders. For people
who have a lower level of dependency, then it may well be that
drug abstinence orders are appropriate...we have no desire or
intent to roll these pilots out and to make them available nationwide
before we have the treatment capacity in order to be able to refer
people on...Drug abstinence orders should not be being used, and
I have heard the allegation, 'setting people up to fail', but
they should be used in circumstances where people should be able
to cope with the commitment that they are being expected to make
without the testing requirement and we should not be pushing them
in there if there is no treatment available".[242]

264. We recommend that Drug Abstinence Orders
are amended to carry the requirement of access to treatment.